Now completed [Re: Work in progress [Fwd: Changes in update tocontribution]]

[Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>]

All work listed below is complete.  I know of no outstanding action items 
or issues that should affect the document[1].  In a quick scan of the final 
"no changes" PDF[2], the worst thing I noticed was an apparent header that 
appears at the bottom of a page.  Not bad.

Note that I uploaded to different -diff files[3,4], depending upon the 
version you wish to use as your basis for comparison.

thanx,
	doug

[1] 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8688/WS-Reliability-2004-08-12.sxw
[2] 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8689/WS-Reliability-2004-08-12.pdf
[3] 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8690/WS-Reliability-2004-08-12-diff.pdf
[4] 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8691/WS-Reliability-2004-08-12-bigdiff.pdf

On 12-Aug-04 17:19, Doug Bunting wrote:

> As noted in the attached email to the editing team early this morning, 
> Jacques and I found a way forward that works for us on Section 2.  I am 
> now working on the rest of the edits needed for tonight's (final!) 
> draft.  Most of those edits have been discussed only within the editing 
> team.
> 
> As a checklist for myself and to allow everyone to check I am do not 
> forget something, these changes include (all line numbers from latest 
> contribution[1]):
> 
> * updated content lengths that Iwasa provided
> 
> * follow through on editorial suggestions Mark Peel just provided 
> (thanks again Mark!) to the editing team; we are at the 'add "the" 
> before' point!
> 
> 
> * change clause starting on line 175 to read
> "
> ... (2) as a rule guaranteeing that if “Submit” completes successfully 
> for a payload on the sending side, the “Deliver” operation completes 
> successfully for this payload on the receiving side or else “Notify” (of 
> failure) will be invoked on the sending side
> "
> based on some comments Jacques made on the "proofed version of 1.082 
> thread".
> 
> 
> * remove first "only" in line 287, a typographic error in Mark's 
> contribution
> 
> * avoid the "successful invocation" implications in the first sentences 
> of Sections 3.2.1-3.2.3 (line 524 for example) with rewordings such as 
> "When the GuaranteedDelivery Agreement Item is enabled, one of the two 
> following outcomes SHALL occur for each Submit invocation on a Sending 
> RMP:"
> 
> * change clause in line 828 from "A Receiving RMP supporting a received 
> PollRequest" to "A Receiving RMP that receives a supported form of 
> PollRequest", clarifying the meaning a bit
> 
> 
> * replace two sentences starting at line 1031 with
> "
> If the specific RM Fault encountered was due to a problem with the 
> Request header element, the Receiving RMP MUST set the value of the 
> soap:Fault@faultcode attribute to "soap:Client" (for SOAP 1.1 messages) 
> or the soap12:Fault/Code/Value element to "soap12:Sender" (for SOAP 1.2 
> messages). If the specific RM Fault encountered was due to a problem 
> with processing by the Receiving RMP, the Receiving RMP MUST set the 
> value of the soap:Fault@faultcode attribute to "soap:Server" (for SOAP 
> 1.1 messages) or the soap12:Fault/Code/Value element to 
> "soap12:Receiver" (for SOAP 1.2 messages).
> "
> to correct the SOAP 1.1 "versus" 1.2 issue Jacques pointed out and was 
> mentioned in a response on the "Contribution suggestions just uploaded" 
> thread
> 
> 
> * addition of Delivery failure to Table 25, near line 1056 as another 
> case for MessageProcessingFailure, based on resolution of comments from 
> Jacques which started on the "proposed edits for enhancing 
> composability" thread
> 
> * reword parenthetical comment starting at line 1092 to "(...; that is, 
> any type not defined in this core namespace is allowed)", undoing a 
> change to our meaning here and making the wording less confusing
> 
> * change introduction to bullets starting at line 1115 to "Groups 
> undergoing termination on the Sending RMP and the Receiving RMP
> pass through the following states:", avoiding discussion of a 
> termination process and clarifying the states in question
> 
> * strike "associated with WSDL elements" at line 1809, based on a number 
> of questions including the original "what changed in 1.08?" email.  No 
> voices raised against this change.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I am starting with the contribution I uploaded early this 
> morning. In turn, that document is based on Mark Peel's 1.083 
> contribution[2] and some of my previous contribution[3] (started with 
> the 1.082 root[4]).
> 
> thanx,
>     doug
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8680/WS-Reliability-2004-08-11-drb.pdf 
> 
> [2] 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8621/WS-Reliability-1083-Contrib-Peel.pdf 
> 
> [3] 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8587/WS-Reliability-2004-08-07-drb.pdf 
> 
> [4] 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8498/WS-Reliability-2004-08-05.pdf